Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
-
To: Randy Bush randy@localhost, Elisa Jasinska <elisa.jasinska@localhost
-
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost
-
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:45:27 -0800
-
Accept-language: en-US
-
Acceptlanguage: en-US
-
Cc: "address-policy-wg@localhost" address-policy-wg@localhost
On 02/12/2008 11:48, "Randy Bush" randy@localhost wrote:
> Elisa Jasinska wrote:
>> I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events
>> with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to
>> re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why
>> should the NCC be a special case and no one else?
>
> perhaps someone could phrase the general case?
I thought 2006-01 is the general case. If it's not, I'd appreciate an
explanation of why it cannot be.
Regards,
Leo Vegoda
|
you are here: RIPE -> RIPE Maillists > Archives
